Quad ESL 989 and Maggie 3.6s

I second the Eminent Technology suggestion; they seem to be not well known, which is amazing considering their incredible performance. See the recent review of them in vol. 38 of HiFi+ Mag. I have heard the 3.6's several times and would not trade my stacked Eminent LFT-8A's for them. The dual magnet array technology, in my opinion, clearly outperforms the Magnepan technology. I believe the 20.1 version may use the dual magnet technology, which would help explain why it is a world class speaker.
Eminent's certainly give nothing away in terms of performance to Magnepans (imho). At their price point, I don't know of any speaker which could outperform them. That's a pretty bold statement, but when you hear them, you'll possibly agree. Just make sure you do hear them!

Wc65
I see all the smiles but I want to make sure you know my first post was not directed at you. If anything it was maybe more for Jeff. He seemed to have an issue with you stating the 88 was better than his 89. That's fine if its viewed as an opinion even if it seems like a fact. I just made a general statement after that because I sometimes come across a nice thread that degenerates into flames because people don't get it. Kinda like, "I went to a fight the other day and an audiophile forum broke out". So there was no name calling specificaly, just a lesson in general that I learned awhile ago that helps me get along with Dealers, Salesmen, Reviewers etc.

Onemug: Those were honest and heartfelt "smiles". No sweat!!

Jeff can be as irate and/or stubborn as he wishes but the general consensus of reviewers, retailers, and users is that 88's sound better. Here's another example of bigger not being better. If he had heard them blindfolded with really high end source and amplification equipment he would know better. Hey to each his own!!

FWIW, I always find it interesting when people complain about the lack of bass (32hz+) in the 63's and 988's. Most often these are the same folks who say the speakers sound best when they are elevated 8 to 12 inches off the floor (which would reduce the bass in any speaker, box or stat due to a change in the floor reflections which reinforced the bass when they were on the floor.)

Peter Walker designed the Quad 63's to be on the floor (he later changed is mind but I think this change was more about sales than sonics.

A well set up 63 or 988, on the floor, will produce a very tight and flat bass down to the mid 30's and it does not screw up the mid-range, it just fleshes it out. I had full range boxes and 63's in my room which measured exactly the same when the Quads were on the floor and the imaging was not effected either. Off the floor (I have stands for the Quads) they sound brightish and enemic.

Just some more stuff to think about..........

Hi Newbee. For the record I don't want my comments regarding the Quad's deficient bottom end taken as a complaint. The 88 and 89 are world class speakers and I enjoyed my 88's immensely for 3 years. However, they are what they are, and to truly appreciate the depth of recorded music, a subwoofer(s) is required; not specifically for Quads but most speakers. There exist very very few speaker systems that will not benefit from a properly selected and positioned subwoofer system. For more information check all of the threads currently running here on Audiogon outlining the rationale. I won't even begin to enumerate all the reasons; it would simply be duplicitous. Look for posts by member Rauliruegas; he's done a lot of homework on the subject.